EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000
Standard EMDR vs "needs meeting"
wondering · 08/18/03 at 4:55 PM ET
I’m posting back with an update regarding transferring therapists and trying standard emdr vs. DNMS. I’ve been seeing my new emdr therapist, and been using the standard protocol, for almost a month now. My functioning has increased dramatically. Processing is going very well, PTSD symptoms are subsiding, I’ve more stable and centered than I’ve been in eighteen months (since I entered treatment to deal with childhood trauma exacerbated by my son‘s birth, 9-11 -- I was born in New York -- and complicated grief issues over the deaths of another, previous child and my father in law. With standard emdr, I quickly and easily accessed a “safe place” -- at the intake session. I can’t believe how EASY emdr is! (I mean how quick and useful, the content, of course, stinks.) For the past year (in particular, last month) I was told that I couldn’t “do” EMDR, because supposedly DNMS was a safer and gentler way of doing EMDR processing and I couldn’t do it, so I must be really fragmented and fragile -- unable to tolerate even the “easy“ stuff. The biggest reason I couldn’t do DNMS was that I couldn’t “connect to resources”. A huge amount of session time, money and energy was invested in making resources “pure” and safe, etc, but all efforts failed. I had none of those problems when creating a “safe place”. Without a list of necessary characteristics (DNMS) I was able to intuitively find what seemed safest to ME. I have had a dx of MPD/DID since 1989. I have been in therapy for only a fraction of those fourteen years, mostly after I became a parent… a huge “trigger” if ever there was one!. I’d like to make the following comments regarding the applicability of DNMS to the treatment of dissociative disorders, since DNMS was “billed“ to me as an ideal treatment for my difficulties. I have the following reservations: One is that while DNMS teaches ego state theory, it teaches the application of ego state theory to a general psychotherapeutic population. Anyone adept at DNMS, and believing it’s “billing” as to its application in dissociative disorders, might surmise that their training in DNMS constituted experience with DID, etc. However, a disowned, “bad” part of self in the average person is very, very different from an acting out introject in DID. Introjects are sticky in DID therapy, a clinician needs to have a lot of familiarity with them. In fact, if a clinician is going to attempt to use DNMS (or any EMDR) with DD they should know a WHOLE lot about dissociation… and by that I mean: crisis management, safety and stabilization and the management of complex internal binds and repercussions. A clinician cannot rely, and cannot expect a client to rely solely on “resources” for support. Failure to create, attach and bond with “resources“ should not be used as a litmus test of a client‘s preparedness for EMDR processing. That is silly. Two, DNMS is full of steps and procedures. I spent a lot of time poring over Schmidt’s book over the past year, thinking that if I could just “learn” DNMS, shift would occur. All that cognitive effort was useless: in the end, standard EMDR brought “shift”, without my having to read or “understand” anything. EMDR is complex enough, there’s no need to make it MORE complex, and certainly no need to expect clients to “learn” it themselves. The thing is, I don’t think DNMS is necessarily the best treatment for those of us, like myself, WITH “links” to unmet needs. I didn’t need resources, it turned out, I just needed to process trauma. Everything that Schmidt says DNMS should avoid... overload and lack of containment -- well, “needs meeting” WAS uncontaining and overwhelming for me. Trying to access and connect to “resources” associated immediately to all my worst fears regarding being disconnected and unattached. DNMS triggered destabilization… To me this makes an odd sort of sense, if, as many assert, DID is basically a pattern of severely disorganized attachment. Focusing on “connection” (to resources, as “real & pure” parts of self) was a direct confrontation of attachment deficits and disturbances. Standard emdr has been better: easier, safer and more healing. I am amazed at how very well it IS working for me, after a year of struggling with DNMS. My “needs” are getting “met” now -- by standard protocol EMDR. I know my experience is personal/idiosyncratic but I wanted to share it. As well, I know I’ve only had a handful of sessions with my new EMDR therapist and that my feelings or experience may change… I will post back either way. However, I can say that I am more comfortable with standard EMDR than with DNMS, and more hopeful and excited about my treatment than I have been in a long time. Thanks, once more, to Dr. Inobe for allowing clients to post here. It’s been immensely helpful to me. Best to all -- :)
Three, Schmidt writes “I use standard EMDR every time I have a client with a single-incident, adult-onset trauma, that does not link back to unmet developmental needs. I have lots of success using standard EMDR with this population…”
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
